The
AGRIBUSINESS
EXAMINER Premiere Edition (8/31/98)

Monitoring corporate agribusiness from a public interest perspective

Editor\Publisher: A.V. Krebs avkrebs@earthlink.net

WHEN WILL THE CHICKENS COME HOME TO ROOST?

Much has been made recently in the media about President Bill Clinton's efforts to bolster the Federal Government's efforts to
insure the safety of the nation's food supply. He has even asked Congress to provide $101million to deploy more food safety
inspectors and new technology, expand research into the causes of and solutions to food-related illness, and educate
consumers and retail food outlets on the safest food handling practices.

Nice try Mr. President, but once again the facts of the matter suggest still more "inappropriate behavior" by the nation's chief
executive and his Arkansas cohorts. For behind those recent headlines still lurks a scandal that has been conveniently obscured
by Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Ken Starr, Janet Reno et. al., a scandal concerning violating the public's trust in government
relative to the health and safety of the food supply.

For while the Starr "investigation" has been the headline grabber for many months now it is the investigation by the "other"
independent counsel, Donald Smaltz, that many believe has the White House more concerned than a 21-year old intern
pleasuring the President of the United States in the Oval Office.

Pleading guilty to giving former USDA Secretary Mike Espy $12,000 in illegal gratuities, Tyson Foods, the nation's largest
poultry producer, previously has plead guilt to paying Espy $12,000 in illegal gratuities and consented to pay the federal
government $4 million in fines and $2 million in costs. Tyson chairman Don Tyson and his son John Tyson were also granted
immunity from further prosecution.

While the media was reporting simply that Smaltz's investigation centered on "favors from large companies with important
interests before the government," court papers stated that at the same time it was bestowing gifts on Espy, Tyson Foods was
urging USDA to go slow on imposing new meat and poultry handling instructions.

Smaltz's office said prompt imposition of the new rule would have cost Tyson Foods $30 million, although ultimately a court
order blocked enforcement of the rule. It was also believed that Espy's coziness with Tyson was the reason he hesitated to
remove holdover appointees who were helping to block stricter regulation of meat and poultry.

Although the White House at the time had no comment on the Tyson plea many of the Arkansas company's officials have
long-standing financial ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton. When the Tyson family appeared in court they were accompanied by
James Blair, Tyson's corporate counsel and a close friend of the Clintons who "advised" Hillary Clinton in 1978 on
commodities trades that earned her $100,000.

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE????

In a 1995 meeting with U.S. Attorney General Reno and her top aides Smaltz sought to expand his probe of Mike Espy to
include an allegation that officials of Tyson Foods, the nation's leading poultry producer, had delivered cash to then-Arkansas
Gov. Bill Clinton. Smaltz, however, claims he was blocked from doing so by the Attorney General.

Smaltz implied in an interview broadcast on a PBS "Frontline" documentary dealing with the role of the Independent Counsel
that Reno had succumbed to political pressure in the matter. "My sense was that Tyson was putting a lot of pressure on the
Justice Department," he said. He claimed that the Arkansas poultry company got Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) to go to the
department to block his probe.

Smaltz first testified about his dispute with the Justice Department at a congressional hearing last December. While attributing
his problems not to politics, but to the department's desire to "rein in" the independence of the outside prosecutors he declined
to discuss the Tyson matter. A few weeks after the hearing, however, Tyson pleaded guilty to giving $12,000 in gifts to Espy
and agreed to pay a $4 million fine and $2 million to cover investigative expenses.

Smaltz's investigation of Espy has generated controversy ever since his appointment in September 1994. Yet, he has won 15
convictions and millions of dollars in fines. Espy was indicted last August on charges of soliciting gifts worth more than $35,000
from companies he was supposed to be regulating, including Tyson.

For PBS's interview with Smaltz:
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/henrickson.html>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/counsel/smaltz/henrickson.html


Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz's web site can be found at: <http://www.oic.gov/>http://www.oic.gov/

WORTH REPEATING

Sam Smith, who is living testimony to the fact that muckraking can be an honorable profession publishes the weekly e-mail
PROGRESSIVE REVIEW. In his July 31, 1998 edition he reflects:

"The White House lawn party -- `sources here have told me' -- is over. The worst-covered story in modern American history is
about to become unraveled as the White House and the media are forced to confront the other side of the tale: the evidence.

"The notion that the president is, at worst, guilty of sexual peccadilloes and little white lies never fit the known facts, but with the
special prosecutor saying so little, we have been treated to weeks of aggressive codependency between a culpable White
House and a gullible press.

"Were the central character not a president but rather, say, a governor or organized crime figure, what has happened would fit
easily under the purview of the anti-racketeering RICO statutes -- a criminal conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States.
Consider, for example, crimes amongst the Clinton organization and those close to it for which convictions have already been
obtained: Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery(4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12),
conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts(2), illegal campaign contributions(5), money laundering (6), perjury, and obstruction
of justice.

"In addition, possible crimes and issues investigated or raised by special prosecutors, members of Congress and/or investigative
reporters: bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of
sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of
witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal
investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax
fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes,
exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug
money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the
RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in
suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, illegal acquisition and use of 1000 FBI files,
illegal futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents,
withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House
employees, as well as providing access to the White House to drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized
crime.

"Now, Kenneth Starr has clearly shown that he does not want to deal with all of this. He has, for example, turned his back on
the Arkansas drug connection and on the numerous anomalies in the Foster death. He does not -- and neither do the
Republicans in Congress -- wish to open up areas which might lead to bipartisan involvement, such as the drug trade, BCCI,
and organized crime. Instead, he appears to be attempting keyhole surgery: making a minor incision that will have a big effect.
Concentrating on crimes such as obstruction of justice and perjury allow the prosecutor to nail Clinton while not opening up the
Pandora's box of America's endemic political corruption."

The PROGRESSIVE REVIEW, "Washington’s Most Unofficial Source," is a service of the Progressive Review: 1739 Conn.
Ave. NW Washington DC 20009 202-232-5544 Fax: 202-234-6222 E-mail: ssmith@igc.org Editor: Sam Smith. The
Progressive Review On-Line and its archives are found on the Web at:
<http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/>http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/

AFTA NAFTA!

A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) study stopped short of concluding that imported foods are more dangerous than
those produced domestically, but noted that with the increase in food imports from around the world increasing by 50% in less
than a decade, inspectors are failing to keep pace.

Investigators were particularly harsh on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which the study found was able to inspect
only 1.7 percent of 2.7 million shipments of fruit, vegetables, seafood and processed foods under its jurisdiction. Of the
shipments that were inspected by the FDA, only 16,000 samples underwent a laboratory analysis for disease-causing
organisms or other problems. Meanwhile, thousands have been sickened in high-profile incidents involving imported foods,
including Guatemalan raspberries, Mexican cantaloupes and alfalfa sprouts from the Netherlands.

The study by Congress's investigative and auditing agency showed that more than half of the fish and shellfish eaten by
Americans is now imported. At least one-third of fresh fruit and 12% of vegetables also are from overseas.

For additional documents and studies of food and agriculture issues see: Government Accounting Office (GAO)
<http://www.gao.gov/>http://www.gao.gov/

THE PATCHWORK KEEPS GETTING MESSIER

Meanwhile, a recent National Academy of Sciences report shows that while food safety inspection in the U.S. has always been
a patchwork of programs and agencies as our food supply now becomes more global, as new bacteria emerge and as
American eating habits get more varied, the patchwork keeps getting messier.

The report on the food safety system counts 35 major statutes and 12 "primary" agencies involved in keeping food safe,
including the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and parts of the Agriculture, Commerce and
Health and Human Services departments.

As the WASHINGTON POST reports partly in response to this confusion, the president has just issued an executive order
creating a President's Council on Food Safety -- chaired by Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, Agriculture
Secretary Dan Glickman and science adviser Neal Lane -- that will try to pull all these threads together and maybe even
reallocate their famously lopsided and overlapping budgets.

"But the president has another reason for pushing ahead on food safety issues," the POST rightfully points out, "they have
repeatedly proved to be a political winner, one of those areas where virtually no public sentiment can be detected for
weakening or dismantling government protections."
One long-standing complaint is the built-in conflict between promoting and regulating the meat and poultry issues at USDA,
which has by far the most resources for inspection; the FDA, with a more varied industry to police, has fewer.

In its budget this year, the POST adds, the administration asked for a chunk of new money that the FDA and others could use
for food safety research and modernization. House and Senate appropriations committees rebuffed the proposal, but the
Senate, in another surprise showing of the issue's appeal, added $66 million of a requested $100 million in floor debate.
Whether or not new money comes through, the presidential council could offer some guideposts for the more scientifically
based system the science academy's report calls for.

For more information on food safety see: National Academy of Sciences
<http://www.nas.edu>http://www.nas.edu
Food and Drug Administration
<http://www.fda.gov/>http://www.fda.gov/

SPEAKING OF FOOD IMPORTS AND NAFTA

As each day passes it seems that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is not becoming the great "free trade"
panacea that its early supporters touted.

For example, the actual mechanics of trade between the three signatories to NAFTA is becoming more costly precisely
because there aren't enough bridges, rails and docks to handle the goods, and existing structures are often in the wrong places,
mired in the traffic of busy downtowns. The result is hours-long delays for billions of dollars of goods crossing North American
borders.

"This infrastructure was built for a different era," James Giermanski, a professor at Texas A&M International University in
Laredo, told the WALL STREET JOURNAL. "It's ham stringing the trade."

In 1997 the U.S. had $477 billion in trade with Mexico and Canada, up 13%from 1997 as a flood of goods sough to squeeze
through border bottlenecks spreads of all three nations -- as much as $2.5 billion a year. Originally NAFTA's much-vaunted
potential as a truly open-trading milieu, was the main selling point for the controversial 1994 pact as its supporters once
advertised, it would become a powerhouse trade bloc of three closely knit economies.
But "if we're really going to have free trade, you just can't have a truck waiting in line for five miles," says Bernard LaLonde,
professor emeritus at Ohio State University. "From day to day, you don't know what's going to happen. It's contrary to the
logic of NAFTA."


For U.S. auto companies alone, the JOURNAL reports, one study put the price of delays at Laredo at almost $3 million
annually in wasted time, higher labor costs and extra storage expenses. "There's not a flow-through process at the border," says
Stephen Harley, a logistics manager for Ford Motor Co. Ultimately, of course, those extra costs trickle down to consumers;
transportation accounts for 5% to 10% of retail prices.

Additional information on NAFTA, trade and pending "fast track" legislation see: NAFTA & Inter-American Trade Monitor
produced by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Mark Ritchie, President. Edited by Mary C. Turck. Electronic mail
versions are available free of charge for subscribers. For information about fax subscriptions contact: IATP, 2105 1st Ave. S.,
Minneapolis, MN 55404. Phone: 612-870-0453; fax: 612-870-4846; e-mail: iatp@iatp.org.
<http://www.iatp.org>http://www.iatp.org

In addition if you want to find out what jobs have been destroyed by NAFTA check out the NAFTA-TAA page on the Global
Trade Watch web site <http://www.tradewatch.org/nafta/naftapg.html>http://www.tradewatch.org/nafta/naftapg.html

To join the Global Trade Watch list server and keep up to date on trade policy and politics subscribe to and send this message:
"SUBSCRIBE TW-LIST" [followed by your name, your organizational affiliation and the state in which you live] to
LISTPROC@ESSENTIAL.ORG

NAFTA: "A DEAL MADE IN NARCO-HEAVEN"

"For Mexico's drug gangs, the NAFTA was a deal made in narco-heaven," says Phil Jordan, a former high-level official with
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). "But since both the United States and Mexico are so committed to free trade, no
one wants to admit it has helped the drug lords. It's a taboo subject. While I was at DEA, I was under strict orders not to say
anything negative about free trade. Now it's come back to haunt us."

Tracey Eaton of the DALLAS MORNING NEWS reports that sophisticated drug gangs are investing in everything from
trucking companies and rail lines to warehouses and shipping firms to shield their trafficking activities, according to a
confidential report by Operation Alliance, a task force led by the U.S. Customs Service.Drug traffickers are using "commercial
trade-related businesses . . . to exploit the rising tide of cross-border commerce," said the 63-page report, "Drug Trafficking,
Commercial Trade and NAFTA on the Southwest Border."

NAFTA was aimed at wiping out all tariffs among the United States, Mexico and Canada by 2008. Its supporters say it has
been a great success, doubling to $168 billion trade between Mexico and the United States.

But, Eaton points out "although many U.S. officials avoid even talking about potential free-trade/trafficking ties, Mexican
smugglers have been busy hiring consultants to learn how to take advantage of NAFTA, some former drug agents say." The
Operation Alliance report says traffickers were so enthusiastic about free trade that they began studying its intricacies even
before NAFTA was approved on Jan. 1, 1994.

"If you believe NAFTA has not adversely affected the fight against drug traffickers, then you must believe in the tooth fairy,"
said Tom Cash, a former high-level DEA official.

CONSUMERS RIGHT TO KNOW

In recent Congressional testimony Mike Callicrate, who owns and operates a cattle feeding operation in Northwest Kansas and
is a member of the Cattleman's Legal Fund, representing cattle producers fighting to restore free, open and competitive markets
in the sale of our cattle, asked some penetrating questions, questions the American consumer should be asking each day.

How can we say this food was safe? Do we really know where the food came from? Do we know under what conditions it
was produced? "The answer" Callicrate concluded, "is NO to all these questions, I’m sorry to report."

"Shouldn't the consumer have the right to know where his food comes from, what exactly he is eating, how it is produced and
under what conditions it is grown and processed? I believe consumers do have that right.

"There has never been a time in our history that labeling and source verification is more important than today because of this
fact. With problems ranging from illness to death, from Jack in the Box to Hudson Foods, U.S. beef shipments to Korea,
Canadian beef shipments to Louisiana and most recently the E. coli outbreaks in Georgia and New York City, consumers and
government officials have been continually reminded of the expanded health risks in today’s new "global" food economy.
Months later, government officials have yet to determine the source of many of the food-borne illness outbreaks, yet producers
and consumers continue to pay the price of these extremely emotional and volatile market-breaking news releases.

"When visiting south of the border," Callicrate observes, "we are told not to drink the water and to peel the fruits and
vegetables prior to eating, while at home we unknowingly feed our children these same imported foods, potentially
contaminated in human waste water, from areas of poverty and worker exploitation. U.S. producers are banned from using
slave-like labor, non-sustainable practices and unsafe chemicals, while U.S. consumers unknowingly eat imported meats, fruits
and vegetables grown under these same illegal practices and conditions."

Professor of Sociology at the University of Missouri, Dr. William Heffernan says, "Powerful multi-national corporations search
the globe for the hungriest people who will work the cheapest and sell the production in the highest consuming markets."
Labeling, inspection, source verification, safe and sustainable practices are considered unnecessary costs and barriers to
corporate `free' trade. These companies don't care about people; they only care about profits."

Callicrate adds, "Global corporations, cooperating with food distributors, blend and grind unsafe, low quality imported product
with domestically produced beef. They will fight to continue this highly profitable fraud on the consumer. A recent `Dateline'
investigation exposed the practice of blending and hiding other species of meat in ground beef. This is not only another example
of food fraud but also a serious potential heath hazard, and reminds us of the urgent need for proper labeling in domestic
markets."

He concludes: "The power and influence of these powerful corporations extends beyond control of production agriculture,
processing and distribution to politics, government law enforcement and regulation. Government must work to benefit the
people instead of the huge multi-national corporations which have usurped our health and freedoms with their influence and
power.

"Many of the needed laws, like border inspection that could help insure safe food, are in place but are not being enforced.
Mandatory labeling at the final point of sale must be adopted to give consumers the information they need to make their own
choices. U.S. producers have invested heavily in and are committed to producing the safest, highest quality, most consistent
supply of food in the world. There will be problems of course. That's why the ability to identify the source is critical."

WHAT A SPECTRE WE FACE

The BSE "Mad Cow" problem in Europe, resulting in the destruction of 1.2 million cows and $800 million in losses, is a recent
reminder of the importance of knowing where our food comes from. When IBP meatpackers shipped E. coli tainted beef to
Korea during the last year, thanks to Korea's labeling law, the problem, when identified, was quickly isolated and resolved.
Otherwise Korean producers and producers from other sources could have been seriously affected. U.S farmers and ranchers
are denied the same protection at home, thanks to our government's open border policy. Without labeling, how would U.S.
producers fare if faced with a similar "Mad Cow" crisis?

Callicrate noted that IBP, the nation's largest meat packing company packer, has the fastest chain speed, the most
inexperienced workforce with the highest worker injury and turnover rate in the business according to a recent U.S. News and
World Report article. "Thus contaminants and bacteria don't just sneak in," he adds, "- they're built in. Is it any wonder why E.
coli has nearly become synonymous with IBP? Labeling and source verification is important domestically as well as globally!

"USDA is failing in its current responsibilities. Inspection practices are flawed. New programs like HACCP (self-inspection)
are irresponsible. Practices like irradiation are the wrong solution, essentially covering up problems while being cost-prohibitive
to most small processors, further reducing competition and empowering the already too powerful big packers. One Texas
farmer commenting about irradiation explained, `Whole Hog (literally) sausage is now a real possibility.' What a spectre we
face!"

For information on the Cattleman's Legal Fund Headlines see:
<http://www.nobull.net/legal/right.htm>http://www.nobull.net/legal/right.htm

"IT'S A FLU; IT'S CATCHING; IT'S DOMINOES"

Writing in the August 28, 1998 edition of the NEW YORK TIMES business reporter Jonathan Fuerbringer notes that while
global stock markets recently have been plunging, a major index of commodity prices, on products from oil to cotton have
fallen to their lowest level in 21 years which he concludes may be more worrisome for investors in the long run than the
dramatic decline in the Dow Jones industrial average.

Already, he reports commodity prices have fallen 20% in the last year and heightened concern about the economies and
markets of developing nations that began with Asian currency selloffs in the second half of 1997. "It's a flu, it's catching; it's
dominoes,"said William Byers, director of futures research at Bear, Stearns & Co. "Not only is the psychology spreading, but
the economic weakness is spreading."

But, he notes, "for the American investor worried about the strength of the economy, which by all current signs is still strong,
and corporate earnings, which have been weakening, so far the fall in commodity prices and the drop in interest rates have been
good news. The lower prices for commodities, while tough on emerging-market and other producing nations, have lowered
corporate costs here and spurred consumer spending. And the damage that had been done to commodity producers in the
United States has not had a big impact on the economy."

Two forces, Fuerbringer reasons, have been pushing commodity prices lower and will continue to do so. "One is the falling
demand from Asian nations, which, for example, were major consumers of copper for new construction. The other is that
countries in deep trouble, like Russia, are expected to sell what they can to raise money, adding to the supply in an already
weak market. . . . This all means that commodity prices -- and the pain that they are bringing to already troubled economies --
still have a way to go before they hit bottom. `I don't think we are there yet,' Richard Berner, chief economist of Mellon Bank
in Pittsburgh, said."

A NEVER ENDING SCANDAL IN THE FIELDS

A federal Commission on Agricultural Workers estimates that there are 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., up from 1.8
million in 1960. About 800,000 of the current workers lack adequate shelter, according to the Housing Assistance Council, a
Washington-based consulting group that studies rural housing.

Because the nation's agricultural work force in recent years has changed so dramatically it now makes it more difficult for the
government to improve the workers' living conditions, whether by providing housing itself or pressuring growers to improve the
housing they provide. Once composed mainly of U.S. citizens, the work force is now largely composed of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, 40% of them here illegally. Many of these workers leave their families behind, coming with the
goal of returning home as much of their earnings as possible.

Because it is possible for them to earn up to ten times what they can at home, these workers are willing to tolerate living
conditions and wages that few American workers would accept. Such an economic imperative is so powerful that it has
assured a plentiful supply of migrants even as real farm wages have fallen by more than ten percent in the last 20 years.

"The root of the problem is there is an oversupply of farm workers,"said Bruce Goldstein, executive director of the
Farmworker Justice Fund, a Washington-based advocacy group, told the NEW YORK TIMES.

In the past decade, the TIMES reports, the federal and state governments, working with growers, have built tens of thousands
of housing units for migrants. But those units usually go to families, citizens and legal immigrants, rarely benefiting several large
groups facing the worst circumstances: single men and women, illegal immigrants and workers who move from harvest to
harvest.

For more information on the plight of the nation's farmworkers see: Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc.
1111 19th Street N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 776-1757 voice / (202) 776-1792 fax
Shelly Davis and Bruce Goldstein, Co-Directors
A national farmworker advocacy organization which provides policy analysis and technical assistance to migrant health centers,
policy makers, researchers, and attorneys on farmworker occupational health issues.

BILL'S BILLS

Speaking of housing for the poor as of August 30, 1998 Microsoft's Bill Gates wealth was at $58.06 billion, that billion with a
"B." Habitat for Humanity estimates that it costs them $30,000 to build a four-person home (labor being volunteered). With
Bill's bills they could construct some 1,935,314 homes housing 8,708,914 persons.

If you want to track Bill Gates' wealth on an hour-by-hour basis go to:
<http://www.quuxuum.org/~evan/bgnw.html>http://www.quuxuum.org/~evan/bgnw.html

"THAT'S THE WAY TO GET THERE IN ONE BITE!"

"Every indication we have is that it is very, very close," said one stock trader. "We are 1,000% sure. Smart people do believe it
a lot - a lot."

Judging from such comments of stock traders, options strategists and securities analysts strength in recent trading sessions
indicates that a major merger is eminent in which the Pleasanton, Calif. headquartered Safeway Stores, Inc. would buy the
larger Cincinnati-based Kroger Co.

"The market's telling us this is a done deal," says Jonathan H. Ziegler, an analyst who follows the supermarket sector for
Salomon Smith Barney. "I'm thinking that any day there could be an announcement."

Safeway's buying up of Kroger would be the latest - and largest - in a string of supermarket mergers which has recently seen
Albertson's Inc. announced plans to buy the bigger but weaker American Stores Co. for $11.7 billion which pushes the Salt
Lake City, Utah market chain ahead of Kroger in terms of sales.

That merger immediately prompted other major grocery chains, including Safeway, to take a harder, closer look at their
long-term plans, some observers said. Such wide-spread consolidation comes at a time when supermarket chains are seeking
to increase their buying power. A Safeway-Kroger merger would also enable the slightly smaller Safeway to build a national
brand, which it has long sought to do.

With more than 2,100 grocery and convenience stores, Kroger, the nation's second-largest food retailer, has expected sales of
$28 billion this year. Compare that with Safeway, which arguably is the No. 3 player, with $23.8 billion in estimated sales from
almost 1,400 supermarkets in the U.S. and Canada. Kroger would offer Safeway market leadership in areas like the
Southeast, Dallas, Houston and Michigan. There would be severe overlap in markets such as Colorado and Phoenix, but
together they would cover about 70% of those markets.

"If it does want to be the biggest supermarket in the country, Safeway would have to buy Kroger," said Ziegler, the Salmon
Smith Barney analyst."That's the way to get there in one bite."

Additional corporation information on Safeway Inc. and Kroger Inc. can be seen at: Safeway Inc.
<http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/86144/0000950149-98-000481.txt>http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/86144/0000950149-98-000481.txt

Kroger Inc.
<http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/56873/0000950131-98-001893.txt>http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/56873/0000950131-98-001893.txt


PERSISTENT RUMOR

Recently Cargill Inc., the nation's largest private corporation and the world's leading grain trader, and Monsanto Co.
announced the signing of a letter of intent to form a worldwide joint venture to create and market new products enhanced
through biotechnology for the grain processing and animal feed markets. The 50-50 joint venture would draw from Monsanto's
capabilities in genomics, biotechnology and seeds and from Cargill's global agricultural input, processing and marketing
infrastructure to develop and market new products. Subsequently, Cargill would announce that it was selling its foreign seed
operations to Monsanto for $1.4 billion.

Even more stunning news, however, came soon after the Cargill-Monsanto agreement when it was announced on June 1 that
American Home Products, the East Coast-based drugs and pharmaceutical group, will, in effect, take over Monsanto in a $34
billion merger thereby creating a broad-based "life sciences" megacomplex encompassing pharmaceuticals, agricultural products
and food ingredients. The combined stock market valuation of the two companies is $96 billion.

Hope Shand of Rural Advancement Find International in Pittsboro, N.C., has been relentlessly tracking developments in the
biotech industry for several years. She observes that when Monsanto's other seed company acquisitions are added up - the
"Monster" may now occupy the number two position in the sale of all crop seed worldwide. The merger with AHP in June also
instantly created the world's largest crop chemicals company. "Put this together with the `Monster's' number two post in seeds,
its number seven rank in pharmaceuticals, and its fifth position in veterinary medicines, and the Life industry will never be the
same. It is only a matter of time before DuPont, Novartis, or Glaxo-Wellcome strike back."

Well, Shand's prediction may soon come true for since the announcement of the Monsanto-Cargill joint marketing agreement
rumors persist among investors that DuPont, Monsanto's arch-rival, is seeking a possible merger-acquisiton with Cargill's chief
competitor, ADM, corporate agribusiness's "Supermarkup to the World." Meanwhile ADM has recently increased its stock
holdings in IBP, the nation's largest meatpacker to 13.33%.

"Seed Industry Consolidation: Who Owns Whom ?" the Rural Advancement Foundation International's (RAFI) RAFI
Communique July/August 1998 which includes a gigantic new industry consolidation chart, listing over 275 companies and their
subsidiaries, showing who owns whom and features new industry rankings based on the latest wave of mergers and acquisitions
can be viewed at: <http://www.rafi.ca/communique/>http://www.rafi.ca/communique/

"AGRICULTURE IS ABOUT TO GET VERY SMALL"

Systemically still suffering the consequences of the 1980’s "farm debt crisis," victimized once again by the devious and hollow
promises of a "get rich" export policy, unpredictable weather, below cost of production commodity prices, a
corporate-engineered federal farm policy that enslaves family farmers rather than frees them to farm, all have effectively
conspired to dim if not totally darken farm yard lights throughout our land.

But, if we are to believe Steve Baker, Vice-President of Marketing, Research and Development for Agribank, a large
Midwestern co-op bank consortium with multibillions in farm credit assets, things within the next three to five years are going to
get a lot worse for the majority of America's family farms and a whole lot better for a small , very small, number of corporate
agribusinesses.

In a May teleconference before extension agents attached to Clemson University in South Carolina, Baker outlined in an 60
minute presentation, "Agribusiness Is About to Get Very Small," how in a very few years three giant megacomplexes will totally
dominate corporate agribusiness and agriculture and those involved in agriculture will fall into three distinct categories:

1. Reinventors - those who will "reinvent" their businesses to keep up with the changes or start new enterprises based on "new
opportunities." 2. Disllusionists - those who will make cosmetic changes, but continue to do business as usual.
3. Hospice care group - the walking dead, those denying that "change" is happening, who will linger on in some niche group or
else just give up and get out of agriculture.

The new model of farming --- contracting with large megacomplexes to produce crops with a specific design for a specific
purpose --- by the year 2000, Baker notes, will see from 50% to 60% of all crops in the Midwest under contract; 88% of
hogs, 65% of dairies, and 44% of all beef.

Baker also sees, based on interviews his bank conducted with some 60,000 farmers and over 300 CEO's from agribusinesses
up and down the food chain, the current 400,000 agribusinesses which supply the farmer (feed, seeds, chemical poisons,
consultants, etc.) being eliminated or coming under the umbrella of three megacomplexes --- Monsanto, DuPont and Novartis.
He believes that the domination of these three in research, while spending billions each year, means that no one else will be able
to keep pace. In 1990, he notes, there were 30 biotech companies, today there are seven --- "primary intellectual capital" ---
ones.

Baker believes the key implications of what he sees as something "far more exciting" than agriculture --- "life sciences" or
"prescription agriculture" --- are: 1. Massive flows of capital coming into play; currently $80 billion is being annually spent on
food and life sciences research in the U.S. alone.
2. Food chain consolidation will continue to happen rapidly.
3. The key players will have to get their solutions to market and get a return on those "solutions" as quickly as possible to satisfy
their stockholders.
4. There will be "the blood of `middle men' in the streets in all sectors."

Video tape copies of "Agriculture Is About to Get Very Small" are available through Telemedia, 153 Grace Drive, Easley, S.C.
29640; phone: (864) 269-7744 or 1-800-76VIDEO; fax: (864-269-7618.

Bon appetit !!!

Webmaster: steve@greenpeople.org